I'm User:Carcharoth, and I first edited in January 2005, began editing regularly in January 2006, and became an administrator in October 2007. My editing interests are mostly in the areas of science, history, and history of science - mainly gnomelike work but also bringing several articles to higher standards. I also have a long history of contributions in the project and other namespaces. I am standing for election to the Arbitration Committee to serve all members of the diverse community that build this encyclopedia. The attributes I think I would bring to the role, helping to resolve or end otherwise intractable disputes, are:

• Flexibility to adapt to the needs of different cases
• The time and inclination to carry out careful analysis of cases
• Over two years sustained editing of Wikipedia with wide-ranging experience of different areas
• Specific experience at administrators' noticeboards (especially AN and ANI)
• Participation at Arbitration requests, evidence and workshop pages
• Knowledge of the major Wikipedia policies and guidelines
• Remaining objective and fair and being able to see both sides of a dispute
• Being able to argue effectively and articulately for a particular position
• Attention to detail, research skills and summarizing a debate to move it forward
• The imagination to propose something different where it might help resolve a dispute

Over the next two weeks, I intend to expand on these and other thoughts in a longer statement in my userspace. I have been reviewing my editing over the last two years, and will be linking to examples of debates and discussions that I have participated in, to demonstrate what I might bring to the role. Concerning the specific major issues that have arisen this year in the English Wikipedia, I will be happy to answer questions on those topics, as well as areas not covered in this statement.

While considering whether to run in this election, I said to several other editors that I thought it would be particularly hard-fought. There are lots of able candidates that are standing in this election, many of whom care deeply about Wikipedia, even if there are differences in philosophy. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I pledge to support those who are elected. If I am elected, I pledge to work closely with the current and new arbitrators to resolve disputes in a timely manner and address the concerns of the community. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Carcharoth (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Questions for the candidate
• Discuss the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

Voting in this election is now closed. Any votes cast after 00:00 15 December 2008 (UTC) will be reverted.

1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Privatemusings (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Captain panda 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Durova^Charge! 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sluzzelin talk 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Must support the wolfman! Yes, I must, because his never-ending caution, explicatoriness, and readiness to work things through would be great assets to the committee. So I must... even though I have a nasty feeling I may be doing Carch a disservice, insofar as those are also qualities that may set him up for being the first new arb with burnout. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
9. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong support. I think he will add a very unique perspective to the committee.John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Expanded: John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Tom B (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. iridescent 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. per Bish. Giggy (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Through involvement at every level of Wikipedia, and particularly prolific content generation, I've seen enough to trust Carcharoth's judgment to something so important as ArbCom, although it would be unfortunate to see other areas of contribution suffer for the sake of the worst of Wikipedia.--ragesoss (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. - filelakeshoe 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. --PeaceNT (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Calmer and more thoughtful than most. PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support From what i hear, a good contributor. Sam ^Blab 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Majorly ^talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Clear support - jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. See reasoning. east718 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom, you this candidate was one of them. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Graham87 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    iMatthew 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30. i <3 him --Mixwell!^Talk 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

31. Support. We do not always agree, but seems reasonable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. His willingness to allow editors a chance to work constructively is a net postive, IMO, and he has always shown clear judgement at ArbCom encounters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. I think Carcharoth would make a good arb, but I also think Carcharoth's most beneficial contributions to a situation happen long before the situation gets to arbitration. Gimmetrow 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. SBHarris 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Kingturtle (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support.May cool heads prevail. GJC 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support John254 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. GRBerry 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong support. Calm, knowledgeable, hard working. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Pcap ping 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Beyond a single ounce of doubt. Carcharoth is one of Wikipedia's most level-headed administrators, and a voice of reason in many difficult discussions. More than qualified for the ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. No negative interactions with him that stand out --B (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Strong support. I am consistently impressed by his thoughtful approach to problems and I believe he has the qualities necessary to be an excellent arbitrator. Everyking (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support every time I have collided with him I did agree with his judgement Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. I don't always agree with him or his actions, but I think he has been generally fair and would do a good job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Carcharoth has always struck me as fair and level-headed. I don't always agree with him, but I do agree with his approach. Enigma ^message 06:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Wronkiew (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Synchronism (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Fair and level-headed, as others have mentioned above. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support, levelheaded, doesn't want to let BLP further out of control, and when Carcharoth gets involved in a tough situation, it usually improves. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Strong support. Clear and level-headed, good at defusing situations. Total asset to ArbCom. I don't think that not blocking users is a negative. // roux   editor review09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Hmm... looks like nothing's wrong with this user... I support! --Mark Chung (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

56. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Horologium (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - Whenever I come across Carcharoth he at least tries to grapple with the evidence. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. --Conti|✉ 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support as part of a ticket. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support ATren (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support As solid judgement as we're likely to see. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. I trust Carcharoth's judgment. Acalamari 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Not without reservations, but overall his thoughtfulness and maturity outweigh the fact that he almost never agrees with me. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Have always liked what I see here. Ronnotel (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. AGK 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support well respected admin Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Martinp (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - However...Carch, we already have several on arbcom that write posts that fall under tl;dr. Please keep in mind "less is more" whenever you give your opinion. Tex (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Catchpole (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support NVO (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Good judgment on controversial subjects; he is always ready to talk.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Enjoyable editor to work with. Calm, fair and analytical - all of which are assets for an Arb. One of my very top inspirations on this project. Franamax (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Has the right idea broadly. Davewild (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. I have disagreed with Carch on several occasions, but I find his levelheaded demeanor a necessity on the committee, even if his lack of decisiveness (as pointed out in the oppose section), is a bit of a concern. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Respected member of the community, has impressed me with his well thought out and insightful analyses of situations. GlassCobra 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support - Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Gimmetrow who express my feelings better than I can. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support I was somewhat ambivalent because I agree with Moreschi's analysis below that Carcharoth is (as SBHB put it) "too willing to argue for giving disruptive editors a third, fourth, fifth... sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth... chance"[1] but would be effective at handling admin abuse. On balance, while the former is a concern, the latter is of greater importance to me. --JayHenry (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Icewedge (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Thoughtful and fair. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Synergy 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Tactical vote, positives outweigh the negatives with this candidate. Skomorokh 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. I've always been impressed with his thoughtful analysis of situations. Would rather have no blocks than thousands of overturned ones. Dr. eXtreme 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Sarah makes a fair point, but Carcharoth would bring other assets.--chaser - t 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. How could I not support him? –Sarregouset (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. Alexfusco⁵ 02:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support RxS (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Absolutely. AniMate 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98. --Rividian (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support. Khoikhoi 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support ArbCom could use levelheadedness. Don't disappoint!--Cerejota (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support.User:Kaiwhakahaere--Voted 03:11, 2 December 2008 but forgot to sign, so here goes Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102. support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104. I was very impressed by Carcharoth's nomination of James I of England for FAR, which, unlike many nominators there, he followed through to the end, determined featured status should be saved and the article improved in the process. I was also appreciative of the time and effort he spent in reviewing (acutely) an article I'd been working on: see Talk:Catherine de' Medici's building projects. Carcharoth has unusual talents which I think would be suited to arbcom, in particular a tenaciously investigative turn of mind—he turns up a lot of earth, much of which tends to be just earth, but he also turns up gems. I'm also voting for Carcharoth because I suspect he will make a good replacement for Paul August, who was similarly slow to judge and rightly protective of some of our most eccentric and volatile but also most valuable article writers. That approach needs representing on the arbcom, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. Alæxis_¿question? 19:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Carcharoth has always struck me as having a level head & a willingness to see a task thru until it's completed. I believe he is the strongest candidate for ArbCom in this election, & happily cast this vote for him. (Uh, you are male, aren't you C.?) But like Bishonen, I hope these qualities don't lead to him burning out on both ArbCom & Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support --Cactus.man ✍ 21:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109. Joe Nutter 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. Миша13 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Sultec (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. A wonderful voice of reason whenever I have discussed with him or seen him discuss with other people. bibliomaniac15 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

113. Support. I believe he would be a good addition. He is rational and thoughtful. I have some reservations, as expressed by opposers, but I believe the positives of his perspective and thoughtful consideration far outweigh the concerns. Vassyana (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115. Great answers to questions. Experience with ANI and ArbCom. Thoughtful editing philosophy. Good luck.  Marlith (Talk)  03:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support diligent, contemplative. --Raayen (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. Kusma (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120. Terence (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support Davo88 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
123. Michael Snow (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support I've been impressed by your WP:ANI contributions. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. However, Carcharoth, do take note of the comments regarding brevity of expression. As can be seen in some sitting arbs' comments, a lack of brevity can blunten one's meaning and lead to less effective communication as well as being rope to hang oneself with. Do also hold in check the occasional tendency to focus too strongly on minor points — the committee has to fry the bigger fish usually. Splash - tk 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support - Objectivity and attention to detail. Desired qualities for ArbCom.--Zereshk (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
127. Strong Support The best editor of those I have edited with; a good admin. His opposers confirm this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support The care with which each question has been answered shows that this user will be thoughtful. For the answer to jehochman's blocking question alone, he should be an arbitrator. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support VartanM (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
130. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support --DeLarge (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support - jc37 10:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     support. --Wayiran (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

135. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support. --NikoSilver 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support for not always using blocks to deal with disruptive people. I think Wikipedia would be a better place if blocks were not issued unless unevitable. Leujohn ^(talk)
138. Support we need greater science focus on WP. Though I disagree with you that it and NPOV shouldn't be synonymous (otherwise you fall into relativist trap)Mccready (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support Happy‑melon 17:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support. Reluctance to impose blocks as an admin is precisely the reason why I am voting in support. At times the arbcom has forgotten that it is not a judicial body out to punish bad people, but instead is tasked with applying the minimum degree of restriction necessary for the good of the project. Cynical (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
143. He can do the job. --TS 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
144. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
145. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support. For reasons already mentioned many times. Hectorian (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
147. An impressive candidate in my view. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support. We need science for sure. Politis (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support. My experience with Carcharoth indicates to me that he'd likely become a skilled arbitrator fairly rapidly. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
151. Strong support. @pple complain 00:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support I see no conduct that would be a bar to this user's being an asset to ArbCom. Ordinarily, that'd keep me neutral, but given my experience with Ryan Postlethwaite, I have to support anyone he criticizes for prolonging drama. --SSBohio 05:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support Level-headed and fair. --John (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support' Bencherlite^Talk 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support Chergles (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support yes --Mardetanha ^talk 18:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support Even as I can't be as confident as Seraphim in the candidate's capacity and willingness to push back against BLP overreach and even as I am not without reservations here, I am relatively confident that Carcharoth properly understands that judicial restraint and subservience to the community must be the Committee's guiding principles, and never has it been more important that a candidate should so believe. Joe 02:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support -- Samir 06:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support Jon513 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
163. Yes. Clearly thoughtful, intelligent, imaginative and humane. And doesn't rush into mistakes. Will no doubt take on board comments regarding tendency to over complicate matters and to be lacking in decisiveness. SilkTork *^YES! 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support. —CComMack (t–c) 18:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
166. When I first saw this candidacy, I was sure that Carcharoth was going to get in, so I am a little surprised at where this is heading. While I understand the opposers' concerns, I think the candidate's thoughtfulness and calm in heated situations will lead to constructive remedies. Grandmasterka 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support In my experience this candidate always goes to great lengths to be fair. Giano (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
169. Seems good. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support' Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support Fangfufu (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
172. –Outriggr § 02:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
173. A candidate of inexhaustible patience and a functional understanding of the middle way. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support --IvoShandor (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support --FluffyWhiteCat (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
176. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support I trust his judgement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support - Changing to support per clarification on answer to my question. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support - - Give a man a hammer and nails will be driven.Tttom1 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support tgies (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support. Parishan (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support — Thoughtful, logical, clueful. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Support ←Spidern→ 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

183. Support A fair, objective and reasonable candidate. I think Carcharoth will be a hugely beneficial voice to have on the committee. Rje (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     support Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

184. Support Húsönd 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
185. Support :) Computerjoe's talk 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support --Wayiran (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
188. Support Shenme (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support Farmanesh (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
190. Support Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support Very careful answers to questions show a realistic attitude. I in particular approve of admin who do not need to use blocks. Realistic attitude to the amount of work involved. Excellent ability to make a major contribution in explaining decision rationales. DGG (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
192. Fedayee (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support MikeHobday (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
194. As far as power animals go I'll trust wolves over pigs, sheeps, and kangaroos. — CharlotteWebb 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
195. Support - after examining the oppose votes. ArbCom is not all about banning people. --Illythr (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
196. Support - Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
197. Support --- The Myotis (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
198. Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support arbcom gets a lot of science cases and he's well qualified. Wkdewey (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
200. WODUP 08:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
201. Support Bikasuishin (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
202. DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
203. Support for thoughtful and thorough analysis of problems, good answers generally though the comment on What the Bleep Do We Know!? seems questionable as content in the film presenting or promoting scientific claims has to be dealt with as a science subject, showing the reaction from science sources, while other expert views are appropriate for aspects such as film production or quality. Some concerns about tendency to give disruptive editors more chances, trust Carcharoth will take this on board and support decisive action where shown to be appropriate. . dave souza, talk 12:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
204. Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
205. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
206. Support Excellent answers to my questions, you have clearly prepared for this role. I wish you good luck ϢereSpielChequers 23:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
207. Support. Thoughtful and good judgments on controversial subjects. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
208. Support - have some concerns of leniecy but overall feel he would be a great addition and has good experience and seems able to stay calm and rational under pressure. Also okay views on need for discrecion by the arbcom in some instances Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
209. Support — ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 18:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
210. Support: We disagree quite frequently, but Carch is fair minded, independent, and clear on his principles. That is what we need on ArbCom. Geogre (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
211. Support-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
212. Support ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
213. Support. Carcharoth has demonstrated a remarkable ability at negotiation, often calming both sides in a heated debate. Such skills would be most welcome on the Arbitration Committee.Ryoung122 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
214. Support - Xasha (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
215. Support. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
216. Support I ran into Carcharoth long before they were an admin, and I was highly impressed, both with their ability to mediate disputes, and their knowledge of Wikipedia. Would be a good addition to the Committee. Ariel♥Gold 05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
217. Support. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
218. Weak support - I share many of the concerns expressed by the opposers, but a thorough reading of his answers to the questions indicates substantial depth of thought on the issues that matter and significant level-headedness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
219. Shares my goal of transparency, and worked actively for it during the last two ArbCom elections [2][3]. — Sebastian 09:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
220. Support. - Gregg (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
221. Support. The answers to questions are acceptable. Ruslik (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
222. Support, I favor this candidate over Jayvdb. --Pixelface (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
223. Support --NE2 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
224. Support. Sfrandzi (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
225. Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
226. Support -- Armatura (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
227. Sandy's oppose makes sense, and it is a little concerning. But you know, I've studied you closely in the past, and I'm confident that you would be a far better arbitrator than I would be. We definitely need a Carcharoth on ArbCom, and it's a shame that it looks like you'll just miss out. Strong Support Wizardman 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
228. Support - seems like a sensible, knowledgeable candidate who has been would work well on ArbCom. The worst that can fairly be said of him is that he is somewhat long-winded, but that isn't always necessarily a vice. I certainly don't think 'excessive leniency' is a good enough reason to oppose - even if it's an accurate assessment, ArbCom should contain a range of opinions, with some arbitrators more willing to 'give someone a chance' to balance out those more inclined to rush to punishment. Terraxos (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
229. Support. Seems level-headed and trustworthy. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
230. Support   jj137 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
231. Support --Stux (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
232. Support --PseudoOne (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
233. Arbcom needs some members who will kick major butt, not shy away from doing what needs doing in a timely fashion. Carcharoth, in my view, is not one of them. However Arbcom also needs some members who are COM:MELLOW... That's Carcharoth. Not sure I'm doing the right thing here but ... weak support ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
234. Tactical Support - this candidate has a greater number of supporters than Vassyana, who is slightly ahead in percentage decimal points, and this vote attempts to reflect the views of the editorship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
235. Support EJF (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
236. Support In trying to determine how to vote, I asked Jesus, what would he do, and as you can see, this is what he told me. If Carcharoth is good enough for Jesus, he's good enough for me. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
237. Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (see comments on talk)[reply]
3. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Whilst not his intention, I believe Carcharoth too often prolongs drama and defends disruptive users. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Dlabtot (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Voyaging^(talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Steven Walling (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose, will add reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sadly, he sometimes prolongs drama/disputes more than needed. krimpet✽ 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Smart guy, dedicated, thoughtful. I think he's been aiming at this since last year, so I've been watching, and I think that while Carcharoth would not make a bad arbitrator his contribution to the dynamic of the committee would take it in a direction I don't think is positive. Avruch ^T 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Weak oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - not everyone gets it, and not everyone should get second chances at disruptive editing. Sometimes, enough is enough and Carcharoth has failed to get that in the past. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:Comments like the one above by Aboutmovies ARE disruptive. "Not everyone gets it" includes those editors and admins who fail to recognize their OWN disruptiveness. Also, a comment such as "second chances at disruptive editing" is, again, prejudicial---it presumes that users given a second chance will be disruptive. How about "second chance at editing"? I note that in my own major dispute last year, over 90% of the accusations made against me proved false, from the claim that I wasn't with Guinness to the claim that Catherine Hagel wasn't Delvina Dahlheimer's sister-in-law. Nothing wrong with gathering facts first, attempting to hear both sides of a dispute (as Carcharoth tends to do) instead of engaging in a witch-hunt.Ryoung122 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15. Weak oppose. A little too much politics, not enough encyclopedia building. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. RockManQ^{Review me} 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Mr.Z-man 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Prodego ^talk 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose - Too nice. CIreland (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose with regret. At ArbCom we need people who reduce drama, not incite it, and we need to move away from the sort of rigid/inflexible interpretation of policy this user favours. That being said, user does work in good faith and tries hard to do the right thing. Orderinchaos 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. Orderinchaos said it nicely. Candidate needlessly gravitates toward an awful lot of disputes, sometimes offering sound reasoning, but often offering little more than his/her presence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. Eusebeus (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Mike H. Fierce! 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose. Excellent editor; agree with Avruch's comment. –Outriggr § 05:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose per Orderinchaos, Krimpet, Elonka and SandyGeorgia. Like Avruch, I've long felt that Carcharoth was positioning himself for the committee and while I'm sure that he acts in good faith and with good intentions, I find his tendency to prolong drama and to defend and excuse disruption exasperating in the extreme and I really don't want to see that transferred to an ArbCom which often already needs help in being prompt and decisive. I don't want ArbCom to be block or ban happy, but I do want them to be willing and able to act decisively and I find Carcharoth's reluctance to block/ban or otherwise take action, particularly when dealing with disruptive users, a big concern in a potential arbitrator. Also I must note that I'm really not comfortable with the whole AN:mainspace ratio, though it has nothing to do with my vote here. Sarah 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Regretfully - I think Carcharoth is one of our most fairminded admins but what is an asset as an admin is not necessarily so as an arb. Carcharoth has never blocked a single user, yet he is standing for a position that will at times require him to consider applying the harshest of sanctions. While his commitment to discussion and conflict resolution are commendable, an arbitrator's role is to make judgements rather than mediate. Carcharoth's strengths are IMO more in the latter category. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose Has been positioning himself for this for a long time, but is not very decisive, which is what arbcom needs right now. Woody (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Seraphim♥ 08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose - for me, it isn't anything like a lack of blocks or other punitive measures. It's simply that, when confronted with evidence you take so long to come to any decision, and when you do it seems to always be a "perfect" compromise. This smacks of an inability to be decisive, which is not what Arbcom needs at the moment. Sorry. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. No drama, please. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. — neuro^(talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose Though he means well, Carcharoth has defended too many banned users for my taste. Skinwalker (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret ^account 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. oppose lacks the level of gravitas to his words which we need, at least to an extent, in an arb. Sticky Parkin 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose Far too prone to drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. God, this is a hard one. I like the guy, but ultimately ArbCom's major job at the moment is to kick disruptive users who come their way off the project (along with desysopping rogue admins). I have confidence in Carcharoth to do the latter well, but not the former. Moreschi (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Rebecca (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose ...Modernist (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose. Sorry, but no prior blocks. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) See here. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Tiptoety ^talk 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. --Caspian blue 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose. Carcharoth's level-headed assessments will be better used in amicus curiae approaches, occasionally setting the record straight.--Wetman (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose Nice guy but too often advocates on behalf of disruptive users. Giving multiple chances is nice but he needs to realize that constructive editors who play by the rules are valuable too. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. I know you wouldn't make a bad arbitrator, but I have to say that drama seems to follow you, and that is not what we need. I am very sorry, you are a good person and editor. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose with regrets. I'm in favor of moderation, but his is too often focused on defense (which can foster conflict) rather than conciliation. Chick Bowen 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose with regrets, per the "too drama-prone" line of thought that's cited by many above, e.g. SandyGeorgia and The Fat Man. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also oppose based on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

52. Oppose Cardamon (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose, with regrets. Moreschi puts it rather well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. I believe the ArbCom needs more decisiveness. >Radiant< 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose. Friendly, forgiving nature, but never acts. Could be a great mediator instead. Lost his way. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose. GOOD GOD NO. I think of Carcharoth as the poster boy for WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Nowhere else on the project have I seen someone who takes so much delight in perpetuating needless and cumbersome bureaucracy. Considering the level of instruction creep that has taken place over the last two years of the project, this kind of editor is the last thing that we want on the ARBCOM. Trusilver 00:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Er. That is a matter of personal viewpoints. I perceive Carcharoth as a someone who is patient, merticulous, and can absolutely be trusted to respect and follow policies and proper process — the kind of editor that we need most on Arbcom. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

62. Oppose per SandyGeorgia.Nrswanson (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. Cri du canard (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

63. Ryan Postlethwaite articulated my views well. You make a great admin, but you're not the remedy ArbCom needs in my mind. Sorry. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Gentgeen (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Max (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections - you need 150 mainspace edits, and you only have 71. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

65. Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. My personal interaction with you has suggested you're wrong about points 2 and 9 in your list of skills above. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Oppose without prejudice. This is a good editor and well-intentioned ARB nom. But I've found Carcharoth given to excessive verbiage over trivial issues, something we most definitely do not need on the committee right now. Marskell (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose RMHED (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

69. Oppose Per answers to some of the questions, remember that sometimes the rules must be bent for the common good. Mww113 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Oppose --Node (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. R. Baley (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Mostly per SandyGeorgia - unneeded distraction is unneeded. Also admins and potential arbs must really use their banhammer to have experience in that area. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Oppose Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Oppose --VS ^talk 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose per Sandy.Tony (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. As Ryan puts it succintly; although not intentional, Carcaroth defends the wrong people and, is often reluctant to give punishment against users who have been shown to disrupt en.wiki. Caulde 11:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. oppose logs; failure to answer G4 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 08:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Oppose--Iamawesome800 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Oppose; election is unlikely to hasten the death of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Oppose. Nsk92 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. kurykh 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Too much politicking and drama. Dmcdevit·t 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    OpposeI can't support anyone who honestly thinks that policy can legitimately come from ArbCom. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

89. Oppose - Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Oppose: nothing personal, but I think there are a few candidates who are simply better suited for the job at this point. Don't let this discourage you from running again. Randomran (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Oppose per respected reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Oppose - indecissive and over even-handedness risks loosing the valuable editors - sorry. Wikipedia expanding at a rate we can't manage (look at the backlogs for citing or NPOV disputes), so: engage (yes), warn (definitely), but do then need to get on to block and if fail to learn then to remove from the project. Answers given whilst showing good intent fail to show any teeth to get on and protect the project and at variance with actual practice which, IMHO, unintentionally pampers to tendentious editing. David Ruben ^Talk 14:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. Oppose Does not support enforcement of currrent arbitration rulings, believes the community can ignore or overrule them. Fred Talk 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

95. Oppose as per reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes and Moreschi .Sorry Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. Oppose --maclean 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Oppose same as Maxim (way above) ayematthew ✡ 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98. Oppose per Orderinchaos, Krimpet, Elonka, SandyGeorgia, Avruch and Sarah. Good-intentions, but not the change I think we need. لennavecia 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. Oppose Would probably end up being a decent arbitrator though I partly share SandyGeorgia's concern. But this vote is in part tactical: if it comes down to choosing 2 arbs out of Vassyana, Jayvdb, Carcharoth and Wizardman, the first two are better choices. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100. Oppose - I'm concerned after seeing Sandy's oppose rationale. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
101. Oppose -- billinghurst (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102. Interim vote - will make final vote later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
103. Oppose as per rationale from SandyGeorgia. (Quentin X (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
104. Oppose - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. Oppose – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. regretfully per User:Sarah. E104421 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Not confident he'd be decisive enough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Please see my recent statement here for a general response to this concern and others raised by those voting oppose, and in particular those who have stated that they regret opposing. I hope that what I have said there will allay at least some of the concerns. Also, due to the large number of "per Sandy" comments, I have written a separate response to the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia, which can be seen here. I am posting this note here on the vote page because I want to make sure those voting are aware of these responses on my part. Carcharoth (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

109. No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Oppose Sunray (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Oppose --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. Oppose Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. SQL^{Query me!} 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115. seresin ( ¡? )  22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. Oppose ST47 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
117. --MPerel 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Sorry. Throwawayhack (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. Oppose – Waltham, The Duke of 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]